We've been hearing inklings of this for a few days now, but as best we can tell, here's the situation.

Karen Sugarpants is a mommy-blogger who's written frankly about her struggles with depression. Apparently some prominent daddy-blogger started up a web-friendship with her under the guise of sympathizing. They kind of got to know each other. Then he got inappropriate. Like, Bret Favre-inappropriate. Like, penis-shot inappropriate. And when Sugarpants raised this with fellow mommy-bloggers, she found that she was not along: dude had been sexually harassing at least 25 other women, all the while presumably keeping up the image of a loving husband and family-man.

Advertisement

So, Karen Sugarpants takes to her blog to denounce said creep — well, sorta. Because she doesn't want to hurt his family, she doesn't name him. Instead, she addresses her post to "Dear Internet Boys," and concludes,

So, dear Internet Boy who has preyed upon at least 25+of my friends under the guise of knowing OH SO MUCH about mental illness and depression, I hope you understand that a) us girls talk and we ALL know you're a total douchebag creeper; b) no, we do not want pictures of your penis and c) CUT IT THE FUCK OUT.

The end? Not hardly. This set off a tide of speculation and horror amongst her readers and, from some, anger. One of those who felt moved to respond was Anna of the blog abdpbt, who chided Karen Sugarpants and those who have called her initial blog post brave. Writes Anna,

YOU DO NOT call somebody a hero for posting a passive aggressive post that reveals but doesn't reveal, but does, but doesn't reveal alleged criminal behavior about which many, many people have known for a long time and could have done something to protect other people but chose not to because they were selfish and wanted to do something for their own gain.

YOU DO NOT applaud a woman for staying silent, after all that we have worked for - NO, what our mothers and grandmothers have worked for, to get us this far.

YOU DO NOT take cover in the language of feminism that was developed to protect rape victims from patriarchal institutions that are historically designed to silence them, and turn it against another woman who is asking you WHY ON EARTH you would choose NOT TO USE YOUR VOICE against somebody who victimized you.

YOU DO NOT use your privilege of speech only when it is convenient to you, or when it makes you feel good, or when there is a clear reward at the end of the tunnel. You use it because you have to, because it's the right thing to do and because you HAVE to. You use it because you have an obligation to the rest of us to use it.

This is tricky territory: I'm always wary of those calls for a victim to act a certain way, unilaterally, but at the same time, I understand Anna's frustration: she sees what could have been a moment of direct confrontation handled passive-aggressively — even cutely — and what others consider tact she sees as cowardice. And maybe, having gone this far, the onus is not on you to "not destroy a family" but on him for having done these things in the first place — and, from the sound of it, persistently and aggressively. What's more, anything that leads to suspicion of innocent guys — which it did — is problematic. Despite the post's address, it was intended for one man, one predator, and one blogger — who, apparently, has disabled his blog and been found out. All's well that ends well? Er, with honesty?